Science and biblical interpretation

[Chesterton]

I guess I misunderstood. I was speaking about cosmology in the wider metaphysical sense and I see you’re speaking in the narrower sense of science/astronomy. I’ll say though, I think discussing the Hebrew myths, or any myths, in terms of what scientific knowledge they had, is as informative as discussing them in terms of what type of shoes they had.

 

[gluadys]

I guess I misunderstood. I was speaking about cosmology in the wider metaphysical sense and I see you’re speaking in the narrower sense of science/astronomy. I’ll say though, I think discussing the Hebrew myths, or any myths, in terms of what scientific knowledge they had, is as informative as discussing them in terms of what type of shoes they had.

to that.

btw, as I understand it, "cosmology" refers to the study of the cosmos as it is, while "cosmogony" refers to how the cosmos originated. So we can say the ancient Hebrews accepted the cosmology of their neighbours but rejected their cosmogony i.e. the pagan myths of how it originated.

 

[gluadys]

The most striking difference between the cosmologies of the Hebrews and their surrounding societies is that the Hebrews believed one God created the world and everything in it with purpose, whereas the surrounding societies largely believed that the world was formed by accident in the aftermath of a war between their gods (the Babylonians believed that the world was formed from the bodyparts of the goddess Tiamat, for example).

Just had a thought. Doesn't gap theology erase this difference--at least in part. Just as the Babylonians and Canaanites depicted their chief god having to battle a great monster before getting on to creating the world we know, gap theologians depict the destruction of the creation in a great battle against Satan and the rebellious angels and their defeat before the creation of the world we know today.

Not saying gap theologians are pagans, but it is an interesting parallel.

 

[juvenissun]

1 ≠ 2. The Earth cannot be both 4.5 billion years old and 6000 years old.

1 = 1 = 1

They are all 1s. Depends on how do you look at them.

 

[Mallon]

1 = 1 = 1

They are all 1s. Depends on how do you look at them.

What does that even mean?

 

[juvenissun]

4.5e+9 is given by the apparent radiometric decay systems.

6000 is given by the apparent human evaluation.

Every numbers in between are given by apparent natural phenomena.

It is possible that they are saying the same thing, which is not able to be represented by a timing system we know. You can not deny the possibility of the existence of such a system. Because when you dig into any of the apparent system, the nature of the system is always unknown. And that is all we need to know.

 

[Assyrian]

It is possible that they are saying the same thing, which is not able to be represented by a timing system we know. You can not deny the possibility of the existence of such a system. Because when you dig into any of the apparent system, the nature of the system is always unknown. And that is all we need to know.

But the system is not unknown Juv. We are told in the bible that God's days, his understanding of time, is not like ours. The bible is full of prophetic days, the Day of the Lord, the Day of Vengeance, the day the labourers spent in the vineyard, that aren't meant to be taken as literal days. Moses himself tell us in a Psalm looking at Genesis and the creation, Psalm 90, that a day to God is not like ours. Peter tells us not to forget this very thing, but Creationists try their best to ignore it.

 

[juvenissun]

But the system is not unknown Juv. We are told in the bible that God's days, his understanding of time, is not like ours. The bible is full of prophetic days, the Day of the Lord, the Day of Vengeance, the day the labourers spent in the vineyard, that aren't meant to be taken as literal days. Moses himself tell us in a Psalm looking at Genesis and the creation, Psalm 90, that a day to God is not like ours. Peter tells us not to forget this very thing, but Creationists try their best to ignore it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The time as we know it is not the time according to God.

As for the view of creationist (literal day), I have no comment. Since we do not know what a day is, how could we say it is wrong? The day may be defined in a different way and then it becomes right. If you meant the day as "sun-rise-to-sun-rise", then I may have some conservations. After all, the sun was not there until the fourth DAY.

 

[Assyrian]

That was one of the things that convinced early church fathers who didn't take the Genesis days literally. Are you leaning more toward OEC these days Juv?

 

[juvenissun]

That was one of the things that convinced early church fathers who didn't take the Genesis days literally. Are you leaning more toward OEC these days Juv?

I know nothing about the understanding of early church fathers. To me, they have no reason not to believe a literal 24-hour day. The day-problem might not even a thought in their mind.

No. I am still a YEC. However, my young-earth understanding could be different from other YECs. To me, if the earth is young enough to make evolution impossible, that would be good enough. For example, a 100 million years old earth is still young to me. Because that would probably make evolution impossible (I am not sure). So, I said that I am a YEC because I am against evolution, particularly the part of change from ape to human (the current suggestion is that it only took a few million years).

The second reason is just what was talking about in this thread. Even I work with theories based on an old-earth. But I really think these dates are only significant in a logic system. Time is really a different thing in God's system. That is why we have the illogical concept of "forever".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No. I am still a YEC. However, my young-earth understanding could be different from other YECs. To me, if the earth is young enough to make evolution impossible, that would be good enough. For example, a 100 million years old earth is still young to me. Because that would probably make evolution impossible (I am not sure). So, I said that I am a YEC because I am against evolution, particularly the part of change from ape to human (the current suggestion is that it only took a few million years).

Depends on when you consider the first humans to have existed. Remember, it's a very gradual process indeed, must as the gestation from zygote to adult.

The second reason is just what was talking about in this thread. Even I work with theories based on an old-earth. But I really think these dates are only significant in a logic system. Time is really a different thing in God's system. That is why we have the illogical concept of "forever".

But doesn't that presuppose that God has a different system to us?

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

The second reason is just what was talking about in this thread. Even I work with theories based on an old-earth. But I really think these dates are only significant in a logic system. Time is really a different thing in God's system. That is why we have the illogical concept of "forever".

But doesn't that presuppose that God has a different system to us?

Not necessary. God's system "includes" the system we know. Our world (universe) is only a subset of God's kingdom.

Think about this: We only know 3 1/2 dimensions. But we think there exists another 7 1/2 dimensions. I do believe the tower of Babel we build today is high enough to sense some mysteries of God.

 

[shernren]

It is not just traditional denominations we are talking about here, by the beginning of the 20 century, leading evangelicals, the founders of the Fundamentalist movement like James Orr all believed geology was reliable and interpreted Genesis in line with an ancient earth either as Day Age or Gap Theory.

It was interesting: I was sniffing around AiG for their reaction to this. It turns out that they simply keep Warfield, Hodge etc. hush-hush. They make a great deal of noise over the idea that their interpretation is the "fundamental" one that "all Christians" have held - except, strangely, for some of the most foundational evangelical theologians of the 20th century.

When they do mention Warfield and his ilk it's often with a "oh, how the mighty have fallen" tone. They say things like "nobody is perfect", "great men have feet of clay" and the like. In fact, an article even accused Warfield and Hodge of not understanding the science involved and thus accepting evolution (Warfield only) and an old earth uncritically.

That they treat TEs almost like non-Christians is no surprise. But to sully the very roots of their tradition as simple compromisers? That's amnesia at best and plain slander at worst.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not necessary. God's system "includes" the system we know. Our world (universe) is only a subset of God's kingdom.

Think about this: We only know 3 1/2 dimensions. But we think there exists another 7 1/2 dimensions. I do believe the tower of Babel we build today is high enough to sense some mysteries of God.

What makes you so sure they're "of God"? Is it not more likely that they are some facet of a spectacularly counter-intuitive universe?